Talk:Hjalmar Schacht

header}}

Reichsbank
Schacht was Reichsbank president twice. The first in October 1923, the second in March 1930.

Sometimes you read he worked for Aristotle Onassis; sometimes you read it's vice-versa. Anyone know for sure about this connection? 142.177.24.36 07:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mae Russell says: "Schacht guided Onassis' shipyards in rebuilding the German and Japanese war fleets"

Schacht
A schacht as a Dutch noun refers to a group of people within a student society.

I removed this part from the beginning since the article is not titled "schacht", nor was Hjalmar Schacht of Dutch origin or a member of a Dutch student society, nor is this the Dutch Wiktionary. --kudz75 01:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
The vandalism I reverted appears to have been in the 13:50, 3 Feb 2005 version. ??? When I reverted it is WAS in the page again! That is very weird. It must have been some squid cache thing... nick 21:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche's views on Schacht
Schacht's economic policys have been attacked by Lyndon LaRouche as being along the lines of "Let us remove any obsticals thrown up by democratic republics which remain some how tied to the commonwelfare to ensure the stability of our industry". S.george


 * (1) That's completely incoherent and (2) who cares what LaRouche thinks about the matter? Jhobson1 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually implementing your edits (i.e. publishing your changes online.) It is strongly recommended that you use this before hitting Publish changes, which will cause your edits to be published onto the page and made visible immediately to everybody.

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Use preview during editing to check what the page will look like once they've been saved (i.e. published online) and to check that you haven't made any errors. It also prevents the need for multiple 'publish changes'. Publishing the same article several times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. When making major edits, consider copying the content into your clipboard. The Wikipedia servers sometimes have hiccups, and you could lose your work.

Tip: When you preview, you will also see a preview of the edit summary, so e.g. links can be checked.

You can get a live preview, also known as Quick-preview or AJAX preview, whereby only the preview area will reload, as opposed to the entire page. You can enable this option in your Preferences, by selecting the option Show previews without reloading the page in the Editing section.

There are also several user scripts that provide similar or additional functionality, such as:

wikEd, a large JavaScript based editor with lots of features. User:Js/ajaxPreview, adds a preview button above the edit textarea.

You can get a live preview, also known as Quick-preview or AJAX preview, whereby only the preview area will reload, as opposed to the entire page. You can enable this option in your Preferences, by selecting the option Show previews without reloading the page in the Editing section.

There are also several user scripts that provide similar or additional functionality, such as:

wikEd, a large JavaScript based editor with lots of features. User:Js/ajaxPreview, adds a preview button above the edit textarea.

Typically, the noinclude-part of a template page contains examples including or substituting the template. Changes in the working of the template (i.e. changes outside the noinclude-part) are not yet effective in these examples in preview and, in the case of substitution, in "show changes".

Montagu Norman
Someone added a claim that mefo bills were supported by Montagu Norman, a Bank of England official. If true this should be in however I would very much like to see a source providing more detail. The Land 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Schacht and Morgan where Personal friends from the twenties till 1945 and before anything of this connection will be written in this pages, the world will end ore the apes in Gibratar will disappear. Johann with best wishes

Huh?
This sentence makes no sense: "He resigned as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary in November 1937 at the request of the Minister of Economics, Göring, due to disagreements with Hitler and Göring over military spending, which he believed would cause inflation." It says that either Schacht requested his own resignation or else Göring was the economics minister. Jhobson1 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Goering was Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, not the Economics Minister. The article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Schacht v. Schact
I've run across two US sources (admittedly non-authoritative on this subject) that render the name "Schact." I'm assuming this page must have better information on that score--does it?

[Indeed, I was schact to learn that not all sources agreed--and what in the world is a "squid cache," anyway?]

Terry J. Carter (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't IQ adjusted up because of his age, not down?
Under miscellany - Would the IQ be adjusted down because of his age? If I give a test to a 5 year old, and he scores 100, and then I give the same test to a 50 yr old man, and he scores 100, one way or another, the 5 year old is going to get a higher score, no? Of course, if I am wrong, maybe my own should be adjusted down. Randomplanck (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)randomplanck

Why does Schacht have a miscellany section on his page? He has to be the first person on Wikipedia I've seen whose page has a miscellany section, is there a good reason for this? DerpyContributor (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)derpycontributor

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test-did it exist?
The article said that many Nazi officials were given the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, but according to our own article on the subject that test wouldn't be released until after 1955 (after Nuremberg, of course). Was this test available to the government prior to this date? --Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What motivation would a condemned man have to answer questions on a test? Maybe to score higher than the other condemned men?173.72.63.150 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Horace Shaft
 * The American Army doctor (psychologist) at Nuremburg administered the tests to the war criminals. The results were quite interesting. The prisoners were desperate for activities to take their minds off of where they were. 104.169.39.45 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of Iran
He might have encouraged Iranian government in using the name "Iran" in Western languages, but had nothing to do with inventing the word or its association with the country Iran, and this is misleading (see Iran (word) for the history of the word and its usage). Alefbe (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversed name ?!
A book published by the Cambridge University Press writes the name as Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, and not as in the article.

Who is wrong, Cambridge or the Wikipedia ? There are several examples of both versions in the internet. But would Cambridge publish a book with the name of the protagonist reversed ?

Experts, please do verify, I am not going to change on my own.

Hitler's Banker: Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht. By Weitz John. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1997. Pp. xii + 361.

ISBN 0-316-92916-6.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2777688#

201.0.202.118 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Schacht was a freemason since 1906, when he joined the lodge "Urania zur Unsterblichkeit"(check the German Wikipedia, if you can't accept the truth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.225.126 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't WP:RS for Wikipedia, even the German WP. Would you happen to have a 3rd party WP:RS source for this, and especially his lodge, because that would be a useful addition to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion
No evidence he was Catholic has been shown. Given his birthplace, Lutheran is a better bet, but deleted nonetheless until it can be shown positively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.46.152 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hjalmar Schacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504111622/http://frederic.clavert.free.fr/htm/bio_schacht.html to http://frederic.clavert.free.fr/htm/bio_schacht.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723043139/http://www.clavert.net/?p=63 to http://www.clavert.net/?p=63
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524073600/http://www.mises.org/web/4016 to https://mises.org/web/4016
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126051154/http://frederic.clavert.free.fr/htm/biblio.html to http://frederic.clavert.free.fr/htm/biblio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"special and clan prisoners"?
What on earth is a 'clan prisoner'? This looks to me to be a sloppy use of a Google translation from the source cited, which explains nothing. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:31E6:B0A5:4FD8:37D4 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image size
I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think the infobox is wrong, then fix the infobox. Don't start advocating to shrink a specific image on one article because you 1) think WP shouldn't be glorifying nazis (re your comments at Talk:Eduard Dietl) and 2) don't know who Schacht was. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've raised a valid issue, which deserves a discussion, not hand-waving dismissal, especially since the advice given at the recent ANI discussion was to bring up objections to image sizes on the article talk page. Well, here I am, and you're telling me just to make a change and not discuss it, which is what got me reported (undeservedly) to ANI in the first place.  Given that, you'll have to excuse me if I ignore your advice, well-meaning though I'm sure it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be so obtuse. My advice "fix the infobox" was to raise an appropriate discussion centred on Infobox person, gain consensus centrally or our treatment of images on biographies, and keep them consistent across biographies, based on good usability and page design principles. In particular do not make one-by-one changes "according to the deserved status of the subject" and how much space you think they "deserve".  If you really think that the ANI discussion supported such chanages, then clearly you need to have this raised as ANI again. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An RfC is certain one method to use, article talk page discussion is another legitimate one. Do you thin there's something wrong with starting discussions on talk pages about issues specific to those articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course there is, when that means disrupting a real discussion in one place, in favour of repating the same action on multiple (and often unwatched) articles in a literal guerilla strategy. Which if one of them is unopposed, given your willingness to cite an ANI closure as nearly the opposite of what it actually said, you are then likely to claim as "justification" for repeating your action across other articles. Are you really so desperate to get a second ANI filing over this change? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If on any of these dozens of articles, if it's not clear already what my opinion is, any user can feel free to copy/paste, and please count that as my !vote on each respective talk page discussion.   G M G  talk  18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If on any of these dozens of articles, if it's not clear already what my opinion is, any user can feel free to copy/paste, and please count that as my !vote on each respective talk page discussion.   G M G  talk  18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)